> Has the W3C considered a policy of registering media types in the vnd.
> tree? E.g.,
> application/vnd.w3c.soap+xml
>
> It seems to me that this may help avoid some of the delays and
> overhead with registration in the IETF tree*, and would encourage use
> of the vnd. and prs. trees by example, so that people wouldn't be
> prejudiced against them.
I personally hate the vnd and prs trees -- it promulgates the same
failed
design as the x- prefixes. A reversed dns prefix would at least have
made some sense.
As for the +xml types, a more effective mechanism would have been to
define a major type of xml under the namespace control of W3C, or
barring that an xml tree (application/xml.soap) which could either
be assigned to the W3C or at least incorporate the W3C process.
That would, of course, require an RFC to set up. The +xml suffix
seems to beg for the most delays.
> * Although since my last post, I've had a report that vnd registration
> with IANA is also quite slow and unpredictable...
I haven't heard anything like that -- the Apache mime.types file is
growing at an alarming rate, mostly due to vnd types.
....Roy